NSW Caselaw
Supreme Court New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Barry Edward and Thelma June Harrington v Greenwood Grove Estate Pty Ltd [2011] NSWSC 833 Hearing dates: 9, 10, 11 May 2011 Decision date: 04 August 2011 Jurisdiction: Equity Division Before: Slattery J Decision: The Court declines to grant the injunctions and other orders sought. Catchwords: CONTRACTS - particular parties - vendor and purchaser - contract for sale of land in residential estate - contract annexes management plan for estate - vendor lodges later development application which is inconsistent with management plan - whether express or implied term in contract not to develop the estate inconsistently with management plan - whether collateral contract not to develop estate inconsistently with management plan - whether breach of such term or of a collateral contract - whether injunction should go to restrain the vendor from pursuing its later development application - HELD - no term of the kind alleged is implied into the contract - no collateral contract to the effect alleged - but lodgement and pursuit of the later development application is a breach of an express term of contract regulating the operation of the Management Plan - but the contract is subject to operation of local and state planning instruments which determine whether what would otherwise be a breach of contract has any effect - TRADE AND COMMERCE - Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) and related legislation - whether vendor providing management plan to purchaser represented that it would not carry out development inconsistent with the management plan - HELD - representation alleged was made but was modified by terms of contract before being acted upon by purchasers - final representation was to comply with contract and no more - ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING - environmental planning - planning schemes and instruments - both the Ballina Local Environmental Plan 1987 and the SEPP (Affordable Rental Housing) 2009 provide for the suspension or non-application of covenants agreements and instruments which impose restrictions on the use of land - whether these two planning instruments suspend provisions of the contract restricting development of the estate to that with the management plan - HELD - the two planning instruments do suspend the provisions of the contract restricting development of the estate. Legislation Cited: Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW), s 88B Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (NSW), ss 28, 37, 53, 72, 149(2) Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth), s 52 Cases Cited: BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Hastings Shire Council (1977) 180 CLR 266 Challister Limited v Blacktown City Council (1992) 76 LGRA 10 Codelfa Constructions Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW (1982) 149 CLR 337 Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Limited v K-Mart Australia Limited [1996] NSWLEC 135 Coshott v Ludwig (1997) NSW Conv R 56,366 Cracknell and Lonergan Pty Limited v Council of the City of Sydney [2007] NSWLEC 392 Cumerlong Holdings Pty Ltd v Dalcross Properties Pty Limited & Ors [2010] NSWCA 214 G.H. Wainwright v Canterbury Municipal Council [1992] NSWLEC 96 Gould v Vaggelas (1984-5) 157 CLR 215 Horizons Corporations Law Pty Limited v Rizons Pty Limited [1999] NSWSC 691 Owens & Anor v Longhurst & Ors [1998] NSWSC 387 Natva Developments Pty Limited v McDonald Bros Pty Limited & Ors [2004] NSWSC 777 Shepperd v Ryde Corporation (1952) 85 CLR 1 SJ Connelly Pty Ltd v Ballina Shire Council [2010] NSWLEC 151 Tarval Pty Ltd v Stevens & Ors (1990) NSW Conv R 55-552 Walton's Stores (Interstate) Limited v Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Plaintiff- Barry Edward Harrington and Thelma June Harrington Second Plaintiff- Paul Francis Hickey and Penelope May Hickey Third Plaintiff- Angus Neil Lambie Fifth Plaintiff- Joanne Scotcher Sixth Plaintiff- Robert Andrew Warren and Katrina Maree Warren Seventh Plaintiff- Jacqueline Ulrick nee Williams Defendant- Greenwood Grove Estate Pty Ltd Representation: Plaintiffs- J.Robson SC, C. Simpson Defendant- P.Tomasetti SC; S.Nash Plaintiffs- Somerville Laundry Lomax solicitors Defendant- McCartney Young Lawyers File Number(s): 2010/246191 Publication restriction: No.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate